ON 

Labor  Legislation 


EXTRA  SESSION 

OF  THE  THIRTY-NINTH 

California  Legislature 


November  27  to  December  24,  1911 


ISSUED  BY 

CALIFORNIA  STATE  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR 

SECRETARY’S  OFFICE 

Labor  Temple,  316  Fourteenth  Street 
SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAL. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


ill  A 


G.°  jo 


The  extra  session  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Legislature  convened 
November  27th  and  concluded  its  labors,  December  24,  1911. 

During  the  twenty-eight  days  of  its  existence,  128  bills,  20  con- 
stitutional amendments,  and  numerous  joint  and  concurrent  resolu- 
tions were  introduced.  Of  these,  about  63  bills,  2 constitutional 
amendments,  and  a number  of  resolutions  were  passed  by  both 
houses. 

The  more  important  measures  passed  are:  The  public  utilities 
bill,  the  Young  presidential  primary  bill,  the  Shanahan  resolution 
to  submit  to  the  people  a constitutional  amendment  providing  for 
the  free  distribution  of  text  books  in  all  elementary  schools  of  the 
State,  two  bills  re-apportioning  the  legislative  and  congressional 
districts  of  the  State,  in  accordance  with  the  constitutional  re- 
quirement for  re-districting  every  ten  years,  Caminetti’s  water  con- 
servation bill,  ten  bills  modifying  the  election  laws  of  the  State 
in  adapting  the  code  to  the  granting  of  suffrage  to  women,  bills 
relating  to  election  officers  and  the  registration  of  electors,  bill 
creating  the  office  of  registrar  of  voters  in  counties  where  such 
office  did  not  exist,  a bill  providing  for  the  supervision  of  all  State 
advertising  by  the  Board  of  Control,  bills  approving  the  charters 
of  Stockton  and  Sacramento,  two  bills  increasing  powers  of  the 
Industrial  Accident  Board  in  the  gathering  of  personal  injury 
statistics  and  allowing  the  expenditure  of  fifteen  thousand  dollars 
of  the  board’s  funds  for  this  purpose,  bill  providing  for  inter- 
insurance against  risks  of  any  kind,  including  liabilities  for  acci- 
dental injuries  to  employees,  a series  of  bills  providing  the  machin- 
ery for  making  effective  the  Initiative,  the  Referendum  and  the 
Recall  constitutional  amendments  adopted  at  the  last  general  elec- 
tion, bills  covering  the  incorporation  of  municipal  water  districts, 
building  and  loan  supervision,  irrigation  bonds  and  irrigation  dis- 
tricts, the  acceptance  'of  abstracts  of  title  and  pencil  notes  as 
guarantees  of  ownership  where  public  records  have  been  de- 
stroyed, the  acquisition  of  lands  for  public  parks  and  playgrounds 
by  municipalities,  and  the  adjustment  of  the  controversy  between 
the  State  and  Federal  Government  regarding  16,000  acres  of  school 
lands,  and  also  withdrawing  such  lands  from  sale  until  1913. 

The  more  important  measures  of  those  enumerated  are  dealt  with 
in  the  remainder  of  this  report. 


PUBLIC  UTILITIES  COMMISSION. 


The  public  utilities  bill  embodies  the  results  of  years  of  inves- 
tigation and  study  of  the  subject  by  the  present  members  of  the 


3 


Railroad  Commission  and  their  attorney,  Mr.  Thelen.  It  repeals 
the  Railroad  Commission  act  passed  at  the  last  session,  places  all 
public  utilities,  not  under  local  control,  under  the  supervision  of 
the  Railroad  Commission,  and  provides  for  the  appointment  of  two 
additional  members.  The  commission  is  empowered  to  regulate 
rates,  standards  of  equipment  and  service,  and  the  issue  of  stocks 
and  bonds.  California  is  the  tenth  State  to  adopt  such  a law,  and 
Governor  Johnson  has  issued  a statement  to  the  effect  that  the  en- 
actment of  this  law  alone  is  worth  more  to  this  State  than  the 
cost  of  the  extra  session,  and  that  it  is  the  most  important  single 
measure  so  far  passed  under  his  administration.  Corporation  at- 
torneys by  the  score  offered  objections  and  amendments;  these 
were  carefully  scrutinized  and  in  certain  instances  acceded  to. 
Two  sections  affected  labor;  one  of  them  was  suitably  amended; 
with  regard  to  the  other,  Mr,  Thelen,  speaking  for  the  commission, 
said  the  interests  of  labor  would  be  carefully  guarded,  and  that 
within  ^ the  eight  years  vouchsafed  to  the  present  membership  of 
the  commission  such  rules  of  practice  and  regulation  by  law  would 
be  made  that  there  would  be  no  occasion  for  complaint  or  distrust 
of  the  use  of  the  powers  granted  to  the  commission  by  this  bill. 
Another  bill  was  passed  also,  which  makes  it  optional  for  cities  to 
retain  control  over  their  public-service  corporations  or  to  call  for 
elections  to  transfer  such  control  to  the  Railroad  Commission,  or 
to  retake  this  power  at  any  time. 


PRESIDENTIAL  PRIMARY. 

The  presidential  primary  bill  provides  for  the  election  of  delegates 
to  national  party  conventions  by  a State-wide  vote.  Two  can- 
didates must  be  nominated  from  each  congressional  district  by  a 
one  per  cent  petition  of  their  party,  and  four  candidates  at  large. 
The  State  party  organization  is  empowered  to  group  twenty-six 
nominees  on  the  ballot,  under  the  name  of  the  presidential  can- 
didate for  whom  preference  is  expressed,  the  winning  group  to  be 
pledged  by  the  State-wide  vote  as  an  undivided  delegation.  In  the 
Senate,  Cassidy,  Curtin,  Hare,  Juilliard,  Martinelli,  Sanford,  Wolfe 
and  Wright  voted  for  an  amendment,  which,  if  adopted,  would  have 
permitted  electors  to  vote  also  their  preference  for  Vice-President, 
in  like  manner  as  for  President;  but,  this  was  coupled  with  the 
objectionable  provision  that  only  four  delegates  at  large  be  elected 
by  a State-wide  vote,  the  remainder  to  be  elected  by  congressional 
districts;  it  was  also  made  elastic  so  as  to  make  allowance  for  a 
case  when  a national  party  required  less  than  twenty-six  delegates. 

4 


FREE  TEXT-BOOKS. 


Shanahan’s  constitutional  amendment  providing  for  free  text-books 
in  public  schools  caused  considerable  stir.  Having  been  introduced 
in  both  houses,  it  passed  the  Assembly  without  difficulty,  after  an 
amendment  to  extend  this  aid  also  to  private  schools  with  similar 
grades  had  been  lost  by  a vote  of  23  ayes  and  50  noes.  The  fight 
in  the  Senate  lasted  a whole  week  and  occasionad  some  parliamen- 
tary bitterness  which  could  well  have  been  avoided.  All  the  Sen- 
ators from  San  Francisco  were  opposed  to  the  measure  in  the  form 
it  was  presented,  most  of  them  favoring  an  amendment  similar  to 
the  one  defeated  in  the  Assembly.  Curtin  and  Larkins  wanted  an 
amendment  to  empower  the  Legislature  in  the  future  to  reorganize 
the  State  Board  of  Education.  A poll  of  the  Senate  then  revealed 
the  fact  that  the  necessary  27  votes  were  to  be  had  if  Curtin’s 
suggestion  was  accepted.  Roseberry’s  vote  was  doubtful,  but 
during  the  final  debate  he  announced  that  he  would  vote  for  free 
text-books  notwithstanding  he  had  received  information  to  the 
effect  that  some  members  of  the  Assembly  would  vote  against  his 
bills  pending  there  if  he  should  vote  against  the  Shanahan  amend- 
ment. This  he  deprecated  as  an  attempt  at  intimidation,  but  in 
spite  of  this  he  said  it  had  no  influence  on  his  vote.  It  was  then 
put  to  a vote  and  was  adopted  by  27  votes,  the  nine  San  Francisco 
members  voting  “No.”  Caminetti,  who  has  been  waiting  for  many 
years  to  be  recorded  as  voting  aye  for  free  text-books,  happened 
just  then  to  be  out  of  the  Senate  chamber,  and  a call  of  the 
Senate  did  not  last  long  enough  to  give  him  his  cherished  oppor- 
tunity. The  San  Francisco  delegation  had  to  bear  much  denuncia- 
tion for  opposing  this  measure.  Senator  Shanahan  openly  charged 
that  they  (the  San  Francisco  Senators)  opposed  the  policy  of  or- 
ganized labor  on  this  question,  an  accusation  which  was  generally 
considered  true. 


CONSERVATION  MEASURES. 

The  so-called  Glavis-Pardee  conservation  bill,  promoted  by  Assem- 
blyman Clark,  was  defeated  in  the  Assembly.  The  defeat,  in  which 
the  San  Francisco  delegation  took  a part,  was  due  mainly  to  the 
frantic  appeals  of  country  members  that  it  would  hamper  irrigation 
projects.  Another  bill,  however,  which  was  similar  in  intent  but 
less  drastic,  passed  the  Senate  where  the  period  of  water  appropria- 
tion was  fixed  at  fifty  years,  although  its  author,  Caminetti,  wanted 
it  to  be  forty  years.  The  San  Francisco  delegation  was  by  resolu- 
tion telegraphed  from  the  Board  of  Supervisors  informed  as  to  the 
correct  attitude  to  take  on  this  subject  which  affected  the  Hetch 

5 


Hetchy  water  rights,  and  thereafter  it  assisted  in  every  way  to  get 
a satisfactory  measure  passed.  The  Assembly  restored  the  or- 
iginal forty-year  provision  and  amended  the  bill  further  so  as  to 
improve  it,  and  the  Senate  concurred.  During  a debate  on  this 
measure  when  many  Senators  argued  that  the  conservation  policy, 
too  strictly  adhered  to,  would  retard  the  growth  of  the  State, 
Senator  Boynton  made  a significant  remark  to  the  effect  that,  if 
any  one  at  the  last  session  had  dared  to  speak  in  favor  of  cor- 
porations, ever  so  slightly,  it  would  have  been  considered  treason 
to  the  people;  for  his  part  he  had  on  this  subject  the  same  con- 
victions and  had  voted  for  them  at  the  last  session,  although  he 
had  refrained  from  expressing  his  sentiments  otherwise  than  by 
voting.  He  proposed  a thirty-five  year  provision,  not  because  he 
believed  in  it,  but  because  he  thought  the  Assembly  would  never 
consent  to  fifty  years,  as  he  thought  it  was  inclined  towards  a 
period  not  much  above  twenty-five  years.  Senator  Boynton  is 
quoted  on  this  matter  for  no  other  reason  than  to  show  what  the 
corporation  view  is,  and  to  call  labor’s  attention  to  the  fact  that 
conservation  will  be  one  of  the  great  questions  to  be  decided  at 
the  next  session,  when  it  will  behoove  labor  to  insist  that  if  water 
rights  are  to  be  given  away  for  long  terms,  compensating  advan- 
tages in  the  interest  of  the  people  must  be  exacted;  otherwise, 
after  the  State’s  most  valuable  rights  have  been  given  away,  there 
will  be  nothing  left  to  conserve  for  future  generations. 

REGISTRATION  LAWS. 

The  registration  laws  were  among  other  respects  amended  so  as 
to  do  away  with  the  requirements  that  electors  must  state  their 
exact  age.  This  feature  was  adopted  prior  to  the  use  of  an 
elector’s  signature  as  a means  of  identification,  and  it  should  be 
dispensed  with  in  order  to  encourage  women  as  much  as  possible 
to  exercise  their  right  to  vote,  also  to  suppress  the  reprehensible 
practice  of  the  reactionary  press  to  tabulate  and  publish  the  ages 
of  registered  women,  as  was  done  immediately  the  suffrage  amend- 
ment was  adopted  and  began  to  be  enforced. 

EMPLOYERS’  LIABILITY. 

Two  bills  were  introduced  by  Senator  Roseberry,  empowering 
the  Industrial  Accident  Board  to  gather  statistics  and  disseminate 
information  regarding  employers’  liability  and  compensation,  also 
requiring  employers,  physicians  and  liability  insurance  companies 
to  report  to  the  Board  all  accidents  and  circumstances  connected 
therewith. 


6 


Senate  Bill  No.  11,  appropriated  $15,000  to  enable  the  Board  to 
carry  out  this  work. 

Senate  Bill  No.  12,  dealt  exclusively  with  the  reporting  of 
accidents. 

Although  of  minor  importance,  these  two  bills  were  opposed 

with  as  much  determination  as  if  a life  and  death  struggle  be- 
tween capital  and  labor  was  on.  Both  bills  were  amended  by  the 
Assembly  so  as  to  exempt  farmers,  dairymen,  horticulturists,  poul- 
try raisers,  and  employers  of  domestic  servants,  from  reporting 
accidental  injuries  suffered  by  their  employees.  It  was  argued  in 
behalf  of  these  classes  of  employers  that  it  would  be  unjust  to 
penalize  them  for  failure  to  report  such  accidents,  as  many  of 
them  are  “ignorant  foreigners,”  uneducated  in  the  ways  of  express- 
ing facts  correctly,  do  not  keep  books,  and  as  a rule  lack  sufficient 
intelligence  to  comply  with  the  request  to  make  out  a report  such 
as  might  be  required  by  the  Industrial  Accident  Board.  These 

and  similar  arguments  (?)  convinced  the  majority  in  the  Assembly 
that  it  would  be  bad  to  concede  anything  to  the  Senate  which 
had  accepted  these  bills  as  originally  proposed.  While  the  vote 
to  amend  Senate  Bill  No.  11,  so  as  to  exempt  farmers,  was  taken, 
a call  of  the  house  was  asked  for;  this,  according  to  the  undem- 
ocratic ways  of  the  Assembly,  had  to  be  decided  by  a roll  call 

vote.  As  this  roll  call  clearly  defines  that  portion  of  the  so-called 
country  caucus  which  is  unalterably  opposed  to  any  kind  of  labor 
legislation  affecting  small  business,  the  “No”  vote  on  the  motion 
to  have  a call  of  the  house  is  herewith  given:  Noes — Bennink, 
Bishop,  Bohnett,  Brown,  Butler,  Chandler,  Coggswell,  Cronin, 
Crosby,  Flint,  Freeman,  Gaylord,  Griffiths,  Guill,  Hall,  Hamilton, 
Harlan,  Held,  Hinkle,  Hinshaw,  Jasper,  Jones,  Judson,  Kehoe, 
Lynch,  Maher,  McGowan,  Mott,  Randall,  Rosendale,  Stuckenbruch, 
Tibbits,  Wyllie,  and  Speaker  Hewitt. 

The  amendment  to  exempt  farmers  was  soon  after  passed  by  40 
ayes  and  33  noes.  The  Ayes  were  on  this  roll-call  voted  by  the 
same  members  who  voted  “No”  on  the  previous  motion,  with  the 
following  changes:  The  caucus  lost  the  Speaker’s  vote,  but  gained 
the  votes  of  Bliss,  Cattell,  March,  Slater  and  Stevenot,  who  had 
voted  against  the  caucus  in  demanding  a call  of  the  house;  the 
caucus  also  gained  the  votes  of  Mendenhall  and  Wilson,  who  had 
not  voted  before.  The  Senate  refused  to  concur  in  the  amend- 
ment, and  the  Assembly  stubbornly  refused  to  recede.  The  bill 
then  went  into  conference,  and  the  conferees  being  unable  to  agree, 
it  was  sent  into  free  conference.  Thereupon  the  bill  came  out 
with  the  exemption  clause  stricken  out  and  the  penalty  reduced 

7 


simply  to  a fine  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  and  leaving  out  the 
alternative  provision  for  imprisonment.  In  this  shape  the  bill  passed 
both  houses. 

Senate  Bill  No.  12  went  through  the  same  rough  experience, 
but  did  not  fare  so  well  in  free  conference,  as  it  finally  passed 
both  houses  with  the  clause  exempting  farmers,  and  the  other 
classes  of  employers  named  therein,  from  the  operation  of  the  law. 

There  was  no  opposition  to  Roseberry’s  bill  providing  for  inter- 
insurance against  accidents,  because  it  is  entirely  voluntary  in 
character. 

REAPPORTIONMENT. 

The  reapportionment  of  Senate  and  Assembly  districts  was  the 
greatest  fight  of  the  extra  session  and  lasted  almost  to  the  last 
minute.  No  headway  had  been  made  up  to  within  three  days  of 
adjournment,  wherefore  heroic  tactics  had  to  be  resorted  to  in 
order  to  pass  any  reapportionment  bills  at  this  session.  On  Friday 
morning,  December  22,  Senator  Boynton  addressed  the  Senate  and 
described  the  situation  as  it  was,  declaring  that  unless  the  Assem- 
bly adopted  the  joint  rules  proposed  by  the  Senate  or  other  such 
rules,  the  Legislature  must  adjourn  without  accomplishing  its  main 
purpose.  Immediately  both  houses,  and  particularly  the  Assembly, 
were  in  a great  upheaval.  After  a most  heated  debate,  the  Assem- 
bly adopted  amended  joint  rules.  Brown’s  amendment  permitting 

any  number  of  free  conferences  was  lost  by  30  ayes  and  44  noes. 
The  Senate  quickly  concurred  in  the  new  joint  rules,  the  date  of 
final  adjournment  was  set,  and  the  stage  was  ready  for  the  last 
performance.  Committees  on  conference  and  free  conference  fol- 
lowed quickly  in  succession.  The  free  conference  committee  of 
the  Senate  consisted  of  Boynton,  Roseberry  and  Stetson,  that  of 
the  Assembly  were  Bohnett,  Jones  and  Judson.  From  statements 
made  by  Boynton  to  the  Senate,  the  free  conference  divided  itself 
into  subcommittees,  and  the  Assembly  members,  who  were  all 
caucus  men,  drew  the  lines  of  the  Assembly  districts;  it  was  stated 

further  that  the  committee  worked  on  the  theory  that  it  had  to 

report  back  such  a bill  as  would  receive  a majority  vote  in  both 

houses,  otherwise  there  would  be  no  reapportionment.  Nearly 
every  member  of  the  Legislature  was  therefore  asked  if  he  would 
vote  for  this  or  that  kind  of  a bill  from  the  committee.  It  was 
not  a question  of  justice  or  constitutional  requirements  with  the 
committee,  but  simply  what  kind  of  a reapportionment  would 
go  through  acceptable  to  the  majority.  In  the  final  debate  in 
the  Assembly,  the  origin,  history  and  purposes  of  the  country 

8 


caucus  were  minutely  described  by  its  friends  and  its  toes;  and 
the  will  of  that  organization  conquered  all  opposition. 

WEIGHTS  AND  MEASURES. 

The  weights  and  measures  bill  by  Senator  Welch  was  subject  to 
continuous  onslaughts  by  its  opponents  until  it  received  the  final 
deathblow.  In  order  to  meet  the  stream  of  objections  which  con- 
fronted it  one  or  two  at  a time,  it  received  during  its  life  not  less 
than  three  to  four  hundred  amendments.  When  brought  out  on 
the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  its  champions  assumed  that  all  trace 
of  opposition  had  been  eliminated,  excepting  that  of  Mr.  Hamilton, 
who  had  a rival  bill  of  no  practical  value  and  obviously  designed 
as  a subterfuge.  For  instance,  Hamilton’s  plan  does  not  require 
the  sealing  of  a single  weight,  measure  or  scale  in  the  State,  and 
would  leave  the  inspection  for  the  entire  State  to  be  performed  by 
a force  of  only  five  men,  a force  sufficient  to  guarantee  adequate 
work  in  but  a single  one  of  ouf  larger  cities  during  the  entire 
year.  Mr.  Beatty,  who  had  charge  of  the  bill,  offered  a set  of 
amendments,  some  of  these  only  formal  and  others  agreed  to  by 
the  chief  opponents  of  the  measure.  To  the  surprise  of  Mr.  Beatty 
and  his  supporters,  his  set  of  amendments  were  voted  down  by 
31  ayes  and  45  noes,  and  thereupon  Hamilton’s  amendments  were 
adopted  by  49  ayes  to  17  notes.  Those  who  voted  against  Beatty’s 
amendments  were  in  some  instances  misled  by  the  unfair  debate 
and  many  misstatements  of  facts  but  in  the  main  the  opposition 
came  from  the  country  caucus.  The  Senate  refused  to  concur  in 
the  amended  bill,  and  both  the  conference  and  free  conference 
committees  failed  to  agree.  For  this  reason  no  weights  and 
measures  law  was  enacted  by  this  session,  although  the  people  of 
this  State  by  overwhelming  vote  last  October  expressed  their  de- 
mands for  effective  legislation  on  this  subject. 

CONCLUSION. 

The  extra  session  no  doubt  fulfilled  popular  expectation  with  re- 
gard to  the  enactment  of  progressive  legislation  insofar  as  to 
further  increase  the  opportunities  of  the  people  to  participate  in  the 
political  affairs  of  the  State  and  to  exert  their  influence  upon  mat- 
ters of  public  concern;  it  also  passed  progressive  legislation  to  bring 
corporate  interests  under  closer  supervision  and  control  by  the 
State  so  as  to  limit  abuse  of  powers  and  privileges  granted  to 
them.  On  purely  economic  questions,  however,  questions  that 
touch  more  directly  the  daily  wants  and  needs  of  the  working 
people  of  the  State,  this  session  proved  more  clearly  than  the  last 
that  this  progressive  legislature,  and  particularly  its  controlling 

9 


factor,  the  country  membership,  lacked  thorough  comprehension 
of  the  economic  ills  that  affect  the  masses  of  the  people;  and  was 
more  than  willing  to  defeat  even  the  moderate  demands  of  Labor. 
In  fact,  this  legislature  has  clearly  shown  its  lack  of  progressive 
spirit  in  the  economic  field,  and  that  it  rests  content  with  its 
progressive  endeavors  on  the  political  field,  and  its  measures  for 
the  protection  of  small  business  against  the  exactions  of  big  busi- 
ness. So  far  it  has  gone  and  declined  to  go  further. 

Thus,  a new  condition  confronts  labor  of  this  State.  This  con- 
dition consists  in  the  attitude  of  some  progressive  legislators  who 
represent  small  business.  They  would  obstruct  the  realization  of 
Labor’s  demands  from  the  progressive  movement  which  has  done 
so  much  for  the  people  of  this  State.  They  would  alter  the 
course  of  progress,  ignore  the  aspirations  of  the  toilers,  and  thwart 
their  just  demands.  This  must  not  be.  If  labor  is  to  obtain  its 
due  from  the  progressive  movement,  it  must  assist  in  purging  that 
movement  from  those  who  are  untrue  to  its  principles;  and  it  be- 
hooves organized  labor  of  this  State  to  exert  itself  to  see  that  the 
next  Legislature  will  have  representatives  who  are  progressive  in 
the  economic  as  well  as  in  the  political  field. 

San  Francisco,  California,  January  31,  1912. 


10 


Printed  on  Union-Made  Paper 


